WorstPlayerEver: I also guess a 'real chess player' would consider a move like 25. d6, because if a rather average player like me quickly can figure out that f7 is the target for White, without pressure, and that d5-d6 is a tempo move an sich, then pressure must be the main random element considered why the one player at a given level is better than the other one.

Because some of them... they just don't seem to find the way to the horrible logic, on the path of their strategy, the horrible logic which shelters behind such shady moves as 25. d6 and blunders like 25. Kf2...

Been there, done that. But take in mind there are more dark forests than chess. Far more than you think. And far further than chess.

And then again... seems not completely irrelevant:

'The Netherlands has opted for a regulatory [...] framework that goes far further than the regulations [...] in other European countries.'

PawnSac: < beenthere240: Dreeve ran into severe time trouble early and at the end had 30 seconds for 7 moves. Carlsen had 40 minutes left on his clock. The people who say that Carlsen is unsportsmanlike because he simply waits for his opponents to make a mistake will doubtlessly cite this game. >

Unsportsmanlike?? How so? Nonsense! That's like saying Mayweather was unsportsmanlike because he allowed McGregor to expend all his energy and exhaust himself trying to stay toe to toe in the first half. Well HELLO! That's part of being a boxer!

I've played guys who used an hour to my 20 minutes to maintain an equal position, and then loose on time. Sorry, that's part of the game and the calculation of strength. example..

Balogun-Carlsen; Bal kept pace early on, but after finally making time control he began to collapse. He was spent. Well, DUH.. If endurance is unsportsmanlike, then WHY USE CLOCKS?! It's part of the race! Why fault Magnus for mopping up blunders after an opponent implodes?

If any player is able to solve all the problems and maintain an equal or superior position in half the time, he's the stronger player... PERIOD!

Nerwal: <Dreev just transposes into a regular Ragozin - is the old Botvinnik-Capablanca structure after 4.a3 considered OK for Black now?>

The situation is quite confusing. Computers have shown tremendous skills defending the black side of the Botvinnik pawn roller, and White's theoretical advantage is really put into question. On the other hand human players can hardly learn all the computers moves of the different positions til the end, so they still blunder often and lose a lot of games.

As White HAD to POSSIBLY sac e3/e5 at their 25th move, although in fact Black then had to defend f7 with Be6 after 25. d5-d6 to keep the initiative, rather than using two moves with the same Rook (position! The other pieces have to WAIT= tempo loss=2 moves) to gobble up e3/e5 (by the way, position: the e-file is less important than d- and f-file, one exception: Bd7-e6 to stop Bb7-d5 from attacking f7).

Therefore 25. d6 Be6; d5/e6/f7 are most the strategic squares in this position. Not the e3/e4/e5 squares; as White could defend a possible Rxe5 by blocking e4 with a piece, but that piece would then be displaced: defending yet another helpless pawn at the e-file: e5. From the f-file (Rf4-e4) or distracted fom the a2-g8 diagonal (B-e4). Yet another White punk to defend a useless dark square: e5. Because -the obvious one of this story- f6-f7 would be a weak move in any way... two opposite punks facing each other at e5/f6. Again, go figure.. boy oh boy. What a wasteland would that become.

So, it's all about the light squares in this position. Therefore, again, 25. d6 Be6

25. Kf2 was a most passive move to play, materialistic if you like.. it's not Monopoly. And even if it were Monopoly.. get away!

Not neglectible either: White cannot put enough pressure on the d-file, otherwise White had the advantage then. Thus: it all comes down to the position. And to find the right strategy behind a position.

It's just I usually have no time for this kind of unbridled nonsense, so I must be in a jolly good mood, I assume.

After all it's just simple geometrics, I suppose no high math. I'm quite sure. No matter what.

At move 25 the White King to f2 could not hold on to e3. There was no time, positionally. By the way: WK's not a babysitter. It's a powerful dude. Not supposed to be the elephant in the room. Thereby Kf2 prevents another tempo move -for White- on f7 namely Rb1-f1. I am dying here.

Kf2 stands in the way (f7), like the pawn at d5... 25. Kg1-f2 is made to protect White's weakest object, defend if you like: the poor pawn at e3.. the nerve! What a planned strategy! Genius.

Chess strategy is not exactly about socialism either, I assume. But okaaay, let's proceed... gotta give everything a try after all.

Okay; as Black can gobble up 2 center pawns with their ONLY active piece, thus the most dangerous one, if they like to...at the e-file (but have to let go of pawn b3 while eating e5 with their Re3). The dirty little bugger at b3 is the sting of Black's advantage. Bd5 tackles both. Because Bd7 is a weakie. No need to wake that guy up yet. NB: Multitasking, remember?

Or... you know what? Black can activate their Bishop from d7 to e6.

Thus, conclusion, what other strategic options did White had anyway? It's only one Black Rook active, before move 25 Black's DSB at d7 is inactive as far as it comes to the f-file and the a2-g8 diagonal. There is no other way: after 25. d6 must come ... Be6.

WorstPlayerEver: PPS Who cares. Ground Control probably died out there already... bleep bleep... <no reply...> ....over...

---#---

If you do speak of 'real chess' and cannot find tempo (active) moves, while you are forced to it; under the given circumstances that your opponent is about to gobble up 2/3 of your center pawns... with their bloody Rook.

But White can have at least 1/3 of their center pawns at d6 instead: the one.. why not attack c7 and e7 as well? Still.. in 1 move. Uhm.. which one?

...Moves.. regarded to the weakest point of your opponent, which is not seldom f7; as you are playing with the White pieces... while you have a LSB at your command... to occupy the a2-g8 diagonal and an open f-file a tempo? Just one little move.. While Black has their LSB at d7? Maybe to stop a possible d5-d6...

Then why would SF suggest 25. d6 Be6....??

Maybe Black wants to defend BOTH d7 and f7??? Why not. For God's sake. This is pure torture.

Don't ask to hold your hand.
Ehm...

Then why do you play chess anywayz? Why -in general- are you interested in strategy games at all? Go figure lol did Dreev want to promote ALL of their center pawns? So, WHAT did they want/plan with 25. Kf2?? Strategy wise? Wasn't d5-d6 good enough for him? Who knows what goes through the mind of a bug when it hits a windshield.. in the center..

Well IMHO, the position was literally screaming for d5-d6, as the Black Rooks get blocked from the 7th Rank as well.

F7.. 7th Rank.. do I need to spell it out for you? F-file. A2-g8 diagonal? Kg8, pawn b3.. what has Kg1 to do with all this? His Majesty... Another Czar in Town. At -another- dark square object.. defending a useless dark square object -another pawn- at the wrong file after 25. Kf2 ... No waaay!!! Speaking of timing. Strategy? My arse. Did I bore you enough already*

Sokrates: Well said, <PawnSac>. Apparently, it seems popular among some posters to attack Carlsen regardless of what he is doing. If he loses he is already on a slippery slope and should rather give up his title and leave chess. If he wins he is lucky or exploits his opponent in a devious or tricky way.

I am quite critical towards Carlsen's public behavior away from the board, but at the board his talent and strength should be acknowledged whether you like him or not. Games of chess are only won if you are better at the given moment to play the right moves and administrate your time accordingly. All players are given those conditions equally. No other sport or game is fair to the same extend as chess.

perfidious: <Sokrates....Apparently, it seems popular among some posters to attack Carlsen regardless of what he is doing. If he loses he is already on a slippery slope and should rather give up his title and leave chess. If he wins he is lucky or exploits his opponent in a devious or tricky way....>

One may only speculate how matters would have gone if <cg> had existed during the purple patch of Karpov or during the reign of one of the titleholders who preceded him.

JustAnotherMaster: Dreev called Carlsen was not a true chessplayer and he only waited for the other to make a mistake (how great must one be to do that...Petrosian and Karpov are 2 that I can think of, not that Carlsen doesnt attack beautifully when possible) and then in this game with White he offered a draw after move 12!!! Carlsen whispered "Just make your mistake and I will smash you like the Cockroach you are!!!" It was a whisper so my lip reader cant be 100% sure about the response but it was her best guess.﻿

perfidious: <JAM: Dreev called Carlsen was not a true chessplayer and he only waited for the other to make a mistake (how great must one be to do that...Petrosian and Karpov are 2 that I can think of....>

In a 1978 interview, Botvinnik differentiated between the latter two greats, stating that while Petrosian was most concerned about the security of his position, 'Karpov does not wait: he plays actively'.

It could be read like he was talking about, in his opinion, Carlsen's then prowess as a rapid chess player.

He was asked if he was surprised Karjakin won the 2012 World Rapid Championship.

"No, I wasnít surprised. Karjakin has long since earned a reputation as a brilliant blitz player.

Karjakinís play is a true joy to behold for a professional chess player. He plays chess, in contrast to Carlsen, who prefers to wait for his opponent to make a mistake rather than try to outplay him as real chess players do.

Karjakin plays real chess, and genuinely tries to beat his opponent, so it was a deserved win as he really was the strongest player. He didnít lose concentration and played good chess. Everything worked out for him and he truly deserved the title of World Champion."

keypusher: < Sally Simpson: Just to make it clear.
Alexey Dreev's comment about Carlsen was not made after this game it was made 5 years ago in an interview after this event.

World Rapid Championship (2012)

It could be read like he was talking about, in his opinion, Carlsen's then prowess as a rapid chess player.>

Maybe if you look at it sidewise and think wishfully. Anyway, it's a idiotic statement applied to Carlsen's rapid, classical, or blitz, in 2012, now, or at any time in between, and I'm glad Carlsen stomped him in this event.

Olavi: I guess Dreev unstands something about chess, Dvoretzky requoted on Chessbase today:
<But most talented was definitely Alexey Dreev. His talent was not less than Kasparov or Karpov. When he was young, his results were also better than Kasparov's results>

JustAnotherMaster: <tamar> Carlsen said no DRAW for you even in the second game....that was giving the phat phuck two middle fingers to his comments more than anything could be said with words and everyone knows it.

lenslens007: I think Dreev just got his move order confused with 25 Kf2, because it is pretty obvious that the main plan for white should be to get his own pawn on the 6th rank to help neutralize the pawn on b3, and to somehow get his bishop attacking b3 when having his pawns on dark squares becomes a non-issue. For example, not the most complicated line, but illustrative, would be: 25.d6 Rxe3 26.Kf2 Rd3 27.Be4 Rc3 28.Bd5 and white is OK. 25 Kf2 has 2 strong replies, 25.. Rb8 and 25.. Bb5, both intending to strengthen the pawn on b3, so 25 Kf2 is a terrible blunder that players of this level should easily find unless their brain is fogged.

NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply.
Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous,
and 100% free--plus, it
entitles you to features otherwise unavailable.
Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should
login now.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.

No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.

No personal attacks against other members.

Nothing in violation of United States law.

No posting personal information of members.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page.
This forum is for this specific game and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or
this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages
posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.